Now this is unbeleivable, but it was relayed by a big owner and breeder today. He swore he was telling the truth.

He had a horse entered for a race today or tomorrow from entry days Monday or Tuesday. There were 8 seperate entries for the race. When he returned a short while later the overnights were printed up. His race didn't go, but a 5 horse field did get carded for the day. This is a blatant example of crying poor mouth if I ever heard of one. Does management want to show the government how bad the race cards are to try to get the 3% from the riverboats? Of course we want the proposal to go through, but my GAWD - don't short change the horsemen and betting public in the intermin. This guy was extremely pissed about the race not going because his horses have been off for 2 months already. Hopefully it will blow over, because he's been in the game for quite a few years, and it would be a shame to see something like this be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

He had a horse entered for a race today or tomorrow from entry days Monday or Tuesday. There were 8 seperate entries for the race. When he returned a short while later the overnights were printed up. His race didn't go, but a 5 horse field did get carded for the day. This is a blatant example of crying poor mouth if I ever heard of one.

Unless the guy said whether the races in question were condition book races or extra races or what, the story means nothing.

I don't see any "fives" carded for either day. As far as the "8" or "9", was it an extra race? Book races with six have preference over extras with any number, with the exception of a race that is being used as the "feature".

Now if a book race (numbered 1-9 in the book, not 10 or higher) was called off with 8 or 9, that is a violation of the agreement between the track and the horsemen.

I don't see any "fives" carded for either day. As far as the "8" or "9", was it an extra race? Book races with six have preference over extras with any number, with the exception of a race that is being used as the "feature".

Now if a book race (numbered 1-9 in the book, not 10 or higher) was called off with 8 or 9, that is a violation of the agreement between the track and the horsemen.

Beau, get more details as to the races used and not used.

I checked myself and you're right TG. Several 6 horse fields, but none carded as 5. Shoulda checked before I opened my yap. He may have looked and thought 5. I'll try to find out Tuesday as he went to Kentucky.

I checked myself and you're right TG. Several 6 horse fields, but none carded as 5. Shoulda checked before I opened my yap. He may have looked and thought 5. I'll try to find out Tuesday as he went to Kentucky.

Maybe there's one went with six, but only five are real, and there will be a for-sure scratch. That's been known to happen.

This happens all the time folks especially at Sportsthorne. They will push a race through that carries a lower purse and kill the race with the higher purse knowing they can bring it back on a weekend card and it will fill and attract more betting. It would be interesting to see what the purses were for the race that went and the one that didn't. Over the years I have been a victim of this more times then I care to count. Think its bad when you are the owner? Try explaining it to members of a partnership!

This happens all the time folks especially at Sportsthorne. They will push a race through that carries a lower purse and kill the race with the higher purse knowing they can bring it back on a weekend card and it will fill and attract more betting. It would be interesting to see what the purses were for the race that went and the one that didn't. Over the years I have been a victim of this more times then I care to count. Think its bad when you are the owner? Try explaining it to members of a partnership!

It works both ways, Jim. I've been on the backside at Arlington listening to them begging trainers over the P.A. to get a horse or two to make some allowance for Mr. Big Out-of-State's horse go, a race that finally ends up with four horses running after the hustled horses scratch, while a perfectly good claiming extra on the turf, or maybe a lower level dirt claimer, both of which drew 10 horses, got bumped. My horses have been victims of that more times than I care to count, but what the hell, it was local owners, and a lower purse. Try telling that to the owners/partners of the 10 horses, not to mention the bettors.

Jim C. I can't beleive that you only mentioned Sportsthorne and not Arlington. Even though the original thread was relating to a race at Hawthorne which really did upset me when I heard of it, but you broadened it by stating that it happens all the time at Hawthorne. Arlington is much worse overall and for many consecutive years when it comes to races written for the Illinois horsemen, and shorter fields.Last summer we had 2 5k claimers, several 10k-18k claimers, 2 25k claimers, and 2 35k claimers. There were instances where our Illinois filly, and 3 other horses (none 10k or less) had to go over 45 days because there was no race even written for them and our filly was racing at the Illinois Allowance nw2ot. However, there were tons of maiden restricted open allowance races written every week for fillys-or high level optional/allowance races for both males/females, both of which almost always had short fields.It did seem to me that Arlington for the first in a long time had slightly better field sizes. Considering that they race in the warmest months of the year, they don't have an excuse to have small fields.

I only made the point about Sportsthorne because that was the track that was the subject of the post. If you saw my next post you will see that I said it was wrong no matter where it happens. It seems Sportsthorne will kill races more for what the purse money paid out will be while AP does it more for what owners/horses will be entered. Its not a situation that is unique to Illinois either. I have friends who tell me the same stories from Ky, FL and NY.

I only made the point about Sportsthorne because that was the track that was the subject of the post. If you saw my next post you will see that I said it was wrong no matter where it happens. It seems Sportsthorne will kill races more for what the purse money paid out will be while AP does it more for what owners/horses will be entered. Its not a situation that is unique to Illinois either. I have friends who tell me the same stories from Ky, FL and NY.

In the long run, what difference does it make to Haw-Nat which races run? They have to pay a certain total of purses that's set by to law. If they underpay the purse account by killing high purse races, they owe the horsemen money at the end of the meet. What's the long term motivation to them to be killing races, an allowance in favor of a claimer, for example? Breeder's awards and/or Illinois owner bonuses?

I only made the point about Sportsthorne because that was the track that was the subject of the post. If you saw my next post you will see that I said it was wrong no matter where it happens. It seems Sportsthorne will kill races more for what the purse money paid out will be while AP does it more for what owners/horses will be entered. Its not a situation that is unique to Illinois either. I have friends who tell me the same stories from Ky, FL and NY.

I talked with my trainer today, and he said it's been like this for a few years at both tracks for various reasons. The trainers hate it, but some also will put a cheap horse in a higher race to help fill it, and then scratch out. He said he races every race unless the vet scratches his horse, but you're right Terry-he said that happens alot at Arlington. That sucks too.

I talked with my trainer today, and he said it's been like this for a few years at both tracks for various reasons. The trainers hate it, but some also will put a cheap horse in a higher race to help fill it, and then scratch out. He said he races every race unless the vet scratches his horse, but you're right Terry-he said that happens alot at Arlington. That sucks too.

The Racing Office lies to you, too. "Hey, enter Old Dobbins, yes he'd be in tough, but it looks like the race is only going to go with six, and all he has to do is beat one horse to pick up a check." So you enter, and the sheet comes out there's nine horses, and every one of the others can stomp yours nine ways to Sunday. Then the stews won't let you scratch. That happens once. After that your trainer knows your horse is not to be used as "race filler" under any circumstances.

Terry the reason it makes a difference as to what money is paid out in purses is that the office knows how much over or under they are in covering the purse account. Point being that if the money is going to be short or overpaying the account they kill the races with the higher purse money. They can also kill the higher purse races until they know the fields will be larger and the betting will be stronger too.

Terry the reason it makes a difference as to what money is paid out in purses is that the office knows how much over or under they are in covering the purse account. Point being that if the money is going to be short or overpaying the account they kill the races with the higher purse money. They can also kill the higher purse races until they know the fields will be larger and the betting will be stronger too.

Well, is it good or bad? Would the horsemen rather have the races go, and end up with a huge overpayment and subsequent purse cut, or have the racing office keep a close eye on the budget? I suppose those horsemen who can just pack up and leave, either their operation or their horses, would rather run for overpaid purses up front, and leave the permanent residents in the lurch to deal with the mess. Actually, I suppose all horsemen would rather the track just overpay out the wazoo all season, and then forgive it, but that's not likely to happen in this day and age.